Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

Bioinspired Structures Made of Silicone Nanofilaments for Upcycling Waste Masks to Reusable N95 Respirators.

The increasing demand for personal protective equipment such as single-use masks has led to large amounts of nondegradable plastic waste, aggravating economic and environmental burdens. This study reports a simple and scalable approach for upcycling waste masks via a chemical vapor deposition technique, realizing a trichome-like biomimetic (TLB) N95 respirator with superhydrophobicity (water contact angle ≥150°), N95-level protection, and reusability. The TLB N95 respirator comprising templated silicone nanofilaments with an average diameter of ∼150 nm offers N95-level protection and breathability comparable to those of commercial N95 respirators. The TLB N95 respirator can still maintain its N95-level protection against particulate matter and viruses after 10 disinfection treatment cycles (i.e., ultraviolet irradiation, microwave irradiation, dry heating, and autoclaving), demonstrating durable reusability. The proposed strategy provides new insight into upcycle waste masks, breaking the existing design and preparation concept of reusable masks.

aPDI meets PPE: photochemical decontamination in healthcare using methylene blue-where are we now, where will we go?

Personal protective equipment (PPE) reuse, first recommended in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, can mitigate shortages in crisis situations and can greatly reduce the environmental impact of typically single-use PPE. Prior to safe reuse, PPE must be sanitized and contaminating pathogens-in current circumstances viruses in particular-must be inactivated. However, many established decontamination procedures are not equitable and remain unavailable in low-resource settings. In mid-2020, an interdisciplinary consortium of researchers first studied the potential of implementing cheap and easy-to-use antimicrobial photodynamic inactivation (aPDI) using methylene blue as photosensitizer to decontaminate face masks and filtering facepiece respirators. In this perspective piece, we describe the development of this novel method, discuss recent advances, and offer insights into how equitable PPE decontamination via methylene blue-based aPDI may be integrated into circular economy policies in the healthcare sector.

Reducing airborne transmissible diseases in perioperative environments.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed our understanding of aerosol transmissible disease and the measures required to minimise transmission. Anaesthesia providers are often in close proximity to patients and other hospital staff for prolonged periods while working in operating and procedure rooms. Although enhanced ventilation provides some protection from aerosol transmissible disease in these work areas, close proximity and long duration of exposure have the opposite effect. Surgical masks provide only minimal additional protection. Surgical patients are also at risk from viral and bacterial aerosols. Despite having recently experienced the most significant pandemic in 100 yr, we continue to lack adequate understanding of the true risks encountered from aerosol transmissible diseases in the operating room, and the best course of action to protect patients and healthcare workers from them in the future. Nevertheless, hospitals can take specific actions now by providing respirators for routine use, encouraging staff to utilise respirators routinely, establishing triggers for situations that require respirator use, educating staff concerning the prevention of aerosol transmissible diseases, and providing portable air purifiers for perioperative spaces with low levels of ventilation.

Re-inventing protection in a post-pandemic world: A new aerodynamic endonasal filtration technology.

Is there a "missing device" for respiratory personal protection? Does it exist an easy-to-use device, allowing extensive use in everyday settings by the population, maximizing tolerability and low visual and physical invasiveness protecting from a wide range of threats including airborne pathogens, hence including the particle range of fine and ultrafine particles? Looking at the recent past, in the urgency of finding ready-to-use solutions for the respiratory protection of the population during the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, devices for occupational safety have been used, such as filtering face masks. These are devices intended for workers operating during work shifts in environments characterized by potential high risk, known a priori, often directly sensible; this makes wearers motivated to tolerate discomfort for a given period to face a localized risk, and safety managers determined to supervise compliance with usage specifications. Their use by general population has implied known shortcomings, such as weak compatibility with relational work and activities, low tolerability during prolonged use, low compliance with the proper use of the device, all of this lessening actual protection. The need for a new perspective has emerged, targeting effectiveness in whole daily life, rather than punctual efficacy. Nasal filters are promising candidates to protect individuals throughout the day during the most varied activities, but they lack a systematic definition as a device and as a product; it follows that the high complexity needed to reach an effective performance envelop is generally underestimated. By reviewing available literature, the present paper draws on the experience from the pandemic and infers systematic product specifications and characterization methods for a new, effective personal respiratory protection device; these specifications are compared with the stringent constraints associated with the endonasal applications and, based on air filtration state of the art, quantifies the need for technology disruption and outlining possible new development paths.

Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers.

BACKGROUND: Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos-related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight-hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no availability and use of such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers in asbestos demolition and repair work. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus (September 2022), and we checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that measured asbestos concentration outside and inside PPE (considering outside concentration a surrogate for no PPE), exposure to asbestos after doffing PPE, donning and doffing errors, nonadherence to regulations, and adverse effects of PPE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. We categorised PPE as full-face filtering masks, supplied air respirators (SARs), and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). Values for asbestos outside and inside PPE were transformed to logarithmic values for random-effects meta-analysis. Pooled logarithmic mean differences (MDs) were exponentiated to obtain the ratio of means (RoM) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The RoM shows the degree of protection provided by the respirators (workplace protection factor). Since the RoM is likely to be much higher at higher outside concentrations, we presented separate results according to the outside asbestos concentration, as follows. • Below 0.01 f/cm3 (band 1) • 0.01 f/cm3 to below 0.1 f/cm3 (band 2) • 0.1 f/cm3 to below 1 f/cm3 (band 3) • 1 f/cm3 to below 10 f/cm3 (band 4) • 10 f/cm3 to below 100 f/cm3 (band 5) • 100 f/cm3 to below 1000 f/cm3 (band 6) Additionally, we determined whether the inside concentrations per respirator and concentration band complied with the current EU OEL (0.1 f/cm3) and proposed EU OEL (0.01 f/cm3). MAIN RESULTS: We identified six studies that measured asbestos concentrations outside and inside respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and one cross-over study that compared the effect of two different coveralls on body temperature. No studies evaluated the remaining predefined outcomes. Most studies were at overall moderate risk of bias due to insufficient reporting. The cross-over study was at high risk of bias. Full-face filtering masks Two studies evaluated full-face filtering masks. They provided insufficient data for band 1 and band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 2: RoM 19 (95% CI 17.6 to 20.1; 1 study, 3 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 69 (95% CI 26.6 to 175.9; 2 studies, 17 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 455 (95% CI 270.4 to 765.1; 1 study, 16 measurements; low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 2752 (95% CI 1236.5 to 6063.2;1 study, 3 measurements; low certainty) The inside measurements in band 5 did not comply with the EU OEL of 0.1 f/cm3, and no inside measurements complied with the proposed EU OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Supplied air respirators Two studies evaluated supplied air respirators. They provided no data for band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 11 (95% CI 7.6 to 14.9; 1 study, 134 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 63 (95% CI 43.8 to 90.9; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 528 (95% CI 368.7 to 757.5; 1 study, 38 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 4: RoM 4638 (95% CI 3071.7 to 7044.5; 1 study, 49 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 5: RoM 26,134 (16,647.2 to 41,357.1; 1 study, 22 measurements; moderate certainty) All inside measurements complied with the current OEL of 0.1 f/cm3 and the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Powered air-purifying respirators Three studies evaluated PAPRs. The results per band were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 8 (95% CI 3.7 to 19.1; 1 study, 23 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 90 (95% CI 64.7 to 126.5; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 104 (95% CI 23.1 to 464.1; 3 studies, 14 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 706 (95% CI 219.2 to 2253.0; 2 studies, 43 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 1366 (544.6 to 3428.9; 2 studies, 8 measurements; low certainty) • Band 6: RoM 18,958 (95% CI 4023.9 to 90,219.4; 2 studies, 13 measurements; very low certainty) All inside measurements complied with the 0.1 f/cm3 OEL when the outside concentration was below 10 f/cm3 (band 1 to band 4). From band 3, no measurements complied with the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Different types of coveralls One study reported the adverse effects of coveralls. A polyethylene suit may increase the body temperature more than a ventilated impermeable polyvinyl (PVC) coverall, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 °C, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.42; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Where the outside asbestos concentration is below 0.1 f/cm3, SARS and PAPRs likely reduce exposure to below the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. For outside concentrations up to 10 f/cm3, all respirators may reduce exposure below the current OEL, but only SAR also below the proposed OEL. In band 5 (10 to < 100 f/cm3), full-face filtering masks may not reduce asbestos exposure below either OEL, SARs likely reduce exposure below both OELs, and there were no data for PAPRs. In band 6 (100 f/cm3 to < 1000 f/cm3), PAPRs may not reduce exposure below either OEL, and there were no data for full-face filtering masks or SARs. Some coveralls may increase body temperature more than others. Randomised studies are needed to directly compare PAPRs and SARs at higher asbestos concentrations and to assess adverse effects. Future studies should assess the effects of doffing procedures.

N95 respirators alter facial skin physiological functions and lipidome composition in health care personnel.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, wearing medical respirators and masks was essential to prevent transmission. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effects of N95 mask usage by measuring facial skin biophysical characteristics and changes in the lipidome. METHODS: Sixty healthy volunteers wore N95 respirators for 3 or 6 h. Facial images were acquired and physiological parameters were measured in specific facial areas, before and after mask-wearing. Lipidome analysis was also performed. RESULTS: After N95 respirator usage, facial erythema was observed in both the 3 and 6 h groups. Both sebum secretion and trans-epidermal water loss increased significantly in mask-covered cheeks and chins after 6 h of mask wearing compared with before mask wearing (p < 0.05). Principal component analysis revealed significant differences in lipid composition after mask wearing compared with before. The ceramide subclass NS exhibited a positive correlation with stratum corneum hydration, whereas the AP subclass was negatively correlated with trans-epidermal water loss in the 6 h group. CONCLUSION: Prolonged wear of N95 respirators may impair facial skin function and alter lipidome composition.

Respiratory fit test panel representing population of Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: The existing respiratory fit test panels (RFTPs) are based on Bivariate and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) which utilise American and Chinese head and facial dimensions. As RFTPs based on local facial anthropometric data for Malaysia are not available, this study was conducted with the aim to develop new RFTPs using Malaysian data. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted across Malaysia among 3,324 participants of the study of National Health and Morbidity Survey 2020 aged 18 and above. Ten head and facial dimensions were measured. Face length and face width were used to construct bivariate facial panel, whereas the scores from the first two PCA were used to develop the PCA panel. RESULTS: This study showed that Malaysians have the widest upper limit for facial width. It also found that three factors could be reduced from the PCA analysis. However only 2 factors were selected with PCA 1 representing head and facial size and PCA 2 representing facial shape. Our bivariate panel could accommodate 95.0% of population, while our PCA panel accommodated 95.6%. CONCLUSION: This was the first study to use Malaysian head and facial anthropometry data to create bivariate and PCA panels. Respirators constructed using these panels are likely to fit ≥ 95.0% of Malaysia's population.

Design of customizable personal protective equipment for 3-D printing: Performance evaluation of N95 respirators using computational fluid dynamics.

3-D printing the structural components of facemasks and personal protective equipment (PPE) based on 3-D facial scans creates a high degree of customizability. As a result, the facemask fits more comfortably with its user's specific facial characteristics, filters contaminants more effectively with its increased sealing effect, and minimizes waste with its cleanable and reusable plastic structure compared to other baseline models. In this work, 3-D renditions of the user's face taken with smartphone laser scanning techniques were used to generate customized computer-aided design (CAD) models for the several components of an N95 respirator, which are each designed with considerations for assembly and 3-D printing constraints. Thorough analyses with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were carried out to verify the respirator's efficiency in filtering airborne contaminants to comply with industry safety guidelines and generate data to showcase the relationships between various input and output design parameters. This involved a comparative study to identify the ideal cross-sectional geometry of exposed filter fabric, a sensitivity study to evaluate the respirator's ability to protect the user in various scenarios, and the 3-D printing of several prototypes to estimate printing time, cost of materials, and comfort level at the user's face. Results showed that the combination of different digital tools can increase efficiency in the design, performance assessment, and production of customized N95-rated respirators.

Donning and doffing of personal protective equipment for health care workers in a tertiary hospital in China: A simulation study.

The application and removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) by health care workers (HCWs) is pivotal to their health and safety and the comprehensive efficacy of hospital infection control measures. This investigation was orchestrated to elucidate the challenges that HCWs may encounter during the donning and doffing of PPE. A total of 110 participants from a tertiary hospital in China were engaged. The study employed fluorescent markers to mimic the exposure of HCWs to tainted body fluids, quantified the contamination outcomes, and evaluated adherence to procedures for donning and doffing. Factors including gender, educational background, and the timing of the most recent instruction on PPE donning and doffing were found to influence the occurrence of contamination points (p < 0.05). No significant differences were identified in contamination frequency when assessing age, body mass index (BMI), occupation, educational background, positional title, working tenure, and experience in managing respiratory infectious diseases (p > 0.05). Predominant contamination sites for fluorescent marker residue included the shoulder (32.73%), neck (21.82%), forearm (16.36%), chest (12.73%), and abdomen (11.82%), with the shoulder being the most contaminated body part. A majority of HCWs exhibited susceptibility to errors during the removal of protective clothing, boot covers, and gloves. The contamination frequency was observed to be correlated with the timing of the last PPE training, educational background, and gender. In acknowledging the intricacy of PPE removal and the deficiencies in HCWs' removal techniques, there emerges a perpetual necessity to refine training methodologies and perpetuate regular PPE instruction.

Study on the relationship between the fitness of three types of N95 respirators and facial dimensions.

N95 respirators are the core equipment used by healthcare workers to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases. The protective effect of N95 against infection spread depends on the fit of the N95 to the wearer, which is related to the wearer's facial dimensions. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the relationship between the fit of three types of N95 and facial dimensions. A total of 305 healthcare workers from ten hospitals in Beijing were recruited for this study. Facial dimensions of workers were measured using Intel RealSense Depth Camera D435. Fit testing was conducted on three types of N95 using the TSI-8038 Porta Count Pro + Respirator Fit Tester. Possible associations between the fit test results and facial dimension data were examined. A Porta Count reading of 100 was used as the criterion for an acceptable fit. The fit of the folding respirators was positively correlated with nose length (r = 0.13, p = 0.02), nose height (r = 0.14, p = 0.02), and face width (r = 0.12, p = 0.03), whereas that of flat respirators was correlated with nose width (r = 0.16, p < 0.01), chin length (r = 0.18, p < 0.01), and pro-face width (r = 0.13, p = 0.02), and that of arched respirators was correlated with the nose length (r = 0.13, p = 0.03). The fit of N95 for wearers depends on their facial features. The results of this study can provide advice for medical workers to choose the appropriate N95. Medical staff should fully consider their facial dimensions when choosing an appropriate N95 to improve the protective efficacy of respirators and to reduce the risk of infection by respiratory diseases.

An antimicrobial zinc ion fiber for COVID-19 prevention in nonwoven face coverings for healthcare settings.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented increase in the usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the healthcare industry, especially in the form of face coverings. Subsequently, guidelines related to breathability and wear comfort were published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as an influx of various new materials entered the PPE market. This study evaluated a proprietary, novel, zinc-ion embedded fiber with the ability to deactivate bacteria and viruses, including SARS-COV-2, for its wear comfort in a nonwoven disposable mask in comparison to a commercially available surgical face mask which served as the control. Ten healthy, full-time, career, firefighters participated in this study wearing both masks in a randomized fashion. A medical task simulation (MTS) protocol was developed to replicate nursing task metabolic rates, per the compendium of physical activities, via a graded treadmill walking exercise. Participant ratings including ease of mask fit, overall mask comfort, facial comfort, breathability, and facial temperature sensation were recorded before, during, and after the 50-minute protocol in a controlled environmental chamber. The 100% nylon, zinc ion mask was rated as slightly cooler at the beginning of the trial (at 0.8 vs. 1.3), than the commercially available polypropylene mask. The polypropylene mask also reached a perceived mask facial comfort (MFC) rating of 1.6 just 35 min into the protocol whereas the zinc ion mask did not reach a rating of slight discomfort until the end of the exercise. Findings indicate the novel zinc-ion embedded mask was as comfortable, if not more so, than the commercially available nonwoven mask with more favorable ratings for longer durations. Not only do the zinc properties provide enhanced protection, but they maintain, if not improve, wearer comfort.

Comparison of the inward leakage rate between N95 filtering facepiece respirators and modified surgical masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Owing to shortage of surgical and N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) during the COVID-2019 pandemic, various masks were developed to prevent infection. This study aimed to examine the inward leakage rate (ILR) of sealed face masks and modified surgical masks using a quantitative fit test and compared it with the ILR of unmodified N95 FFRs. METHODS: We conducted paired comparisons of ILRs of bent nose-fit wire masks, double masks, and N95 FFRs from October to December 2021. To measure the protective effectiveness of masks, participants wore masks, and the number of particles outside and inside the mask were measured. The ILR was based on the percentage of particles entering the mask using a fit tester. RESULTS: We enrolled 54 participants (20 men and 34 women) in this study. The median ILR for surgical masks without and with a W-shaped bend in the nose-fit wire were 96.44% and 50.82%, respectively. The nose-fit wire adjustment reduced the ILR of surgical masks by a mean of 28.57%, which was significantly lower than the ILR without adjustment (P < 0.001). For double masks, with surgical or polyurethane masks on top of the W-shaped mask, the ILR did not differ significantly from that of N95. Although the filtration performance of double surgical masks matched that of N95 masks, their ILR was notably higher, indicating that double masks do not provide equivalent protection. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing N95 masks alone is effective in many cases. However, surgical mask modifications do not guarantee consistent effectiveness. Properly selected, sealed masks with a good fit overcome leakage, emphasizing their crucial role. Without evidence, mask-wearing may lead to unexpected infections. Education based on quantitative data is crucial for preventing adverse outcomes.

Identifying leadership practices to support the uptake of reusable elastomeric half mask respirators in health delivery settings.

An increase in reusable Elastomeric Half Mask Respirators (EHMRs) among healthcare personnel has been documented during pandemic emergencies; however, research has not detailed leadership practices to support their use. Forty-three organizations implemented EHMRs received from the United States federal government which prompted interviews with 73 individuals who managed respirator distribution and fit testing between October 2021 and November 2022. Interview data was qualitatively analyzed. Themes around organizational culture and leadership practices emerged when discussing how elastomeric half mask respirators were integrated into health delivery settings including communication and outreach methods to aid worker support. Example included on-line and hands-on training, peer support, leadership support, and a culture that supports respirator use. To support a shift to reusable respiratory protection being procured and implemented, organizational- and individual-level perspectives are needed. Employee engagement, respirator champions, and updated verbal and written communication mechanisms are important takeaways for leaders to consider during any routine or emergency scenario.

Respiratory protection: what SARS-CoV-2 has taught us.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the epidemiological evidence for respiratory personal protective equipment for SARA-CoV-2, a topic of considerable controversy. RECENT FINDINGS: The main findings are that the observational studies and non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) randomized trials do not provide clear evidence that the N95 respirators offer superior protection over surgical masks. A randomized controlled trial on COVID-19 provides evidence that the absolute risk to healthcare workers over time using surgical masks is similar to N95 respirators. SUMMARY: The implications of the findings are that surgical masks and N95 respirators can be considered for respiratory protection in healthcare workers.

Self-reported respiratory health symptoms and respiratory protection behaviors of young adult hog producers in the United States.

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS: In this study, we evaluated self-reported respiratory symptoms during agricultural work, respiratory protection use and experience, and perceived value of receiving respirators using Gear Up for Ag Health and Safety Program™ pre- and post-surveys from 703 to 212 young adult hog producers in the United States. To our knowledge, this is one of the most extensive survey data sets on self-reported respiratory symptoms and respiratory protection behaviors of collegiate-aged young adults working in US livestock production. RESULTS: About one-third (37%) of young adult hog producers stated that they have experienced cough, shortness of breath, fever, and chills after working in dusty areas on the farm. Most (76.2%) stated that they were already "always" or "sometimes" wearing filtering facepiece (N95-style) respirators, even before participating in an outreach program. About one-third (30%) reported experience wearing a cartridge-style respirator but only 5% reported having been fit-tested for a respirator. Young adult male producers were significantly more likely to report use of both respirator types when compared to females, both before and after the program. Male producers were also more likely than females to engage in high-risk farm tasks where respirators are recommended, such as cleaning out grain bins and mixing or grinding feed. Following an educational program, males and females reported using the respirators that they received at similar rates, and 20% of overall participants purchased additional respiratory protection. DISCUSSION: The study found that young adult hog producers in postsecondary education are already wearing respirators with some frequency and at rates higher than previously reported by agricultural workers. More research is needed to make effective task-based respirator-use recommendations and investigate some significant gender differences among young adult hog producers observed in this study.

Health effects of filtering facepiece respirators: Systematic review of pulmonary and cardiovascular effects.

Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) were introduced to protect the wearer by removing small particles from inspired air. FFRs are now also used to reduce the spread of transmissible agents from the wearer and are worn outside traditional healthcare and other workplaces. The COVID-19 pandemic increased concerns about potential adverse effects on wearers. A PUBMED query retrieved articles through June 2022. Abstracts and selected full-text articles were systematically reviewed by the authors. This article focuses upon cardiopulmonary physiologic effects (e.g., ventilation, CO2 elimination, oxygen uptake, and respiratory control) with emphasis upon current and potential research methods as well as summarizing results. 1985 records were identified, of which only 26% were published before 2020. FFR effects on CO2 elimination appear more likely to be significant than effects on oxygenation or cardiovascular function. While FFRs appear well tolerated by healthy persons, more research is needed for those with pulmonary or cardiac disorders, and for children. Many traditional pulmonary exercise study methods require special care when applied to filtering facepiece respirators. Studying additional parameters may explain the paradox of many subjective discomfort reports despite very limited physiologic effects.

Health effects of filtering facepiece respirators: Research and clinical implications of comfort, thermal, skin, psychologic, and workplace effects.

Filtering facepiece respirators (FFR's) such as N95s have become widely used in appropriate settings for personal respiratory protection and are increasingly used beyond workplace settings. Concerns about possible adverse effects have appeared in many publications, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic led to much more widespread use. This paper synthesizes known effects based upon review of publications in PubMed since 1995, addressing effects other than pulmonary and cardiovascular (reviewed elsewhere). Findings: (1) Subjective discomfort is very frequently reported; this includes general discomfort or organ-system-specific complaints such as respiratory, headache, dermatologic, and heat. Research methods are widely divergent, and we propose a taxonomy to classify such studies by methodology, study population (subjects, experimental vs. observational methodology, comparator, specificity, and timeframe) to facilitate synthesis. (2) Objective measures of increased heat and humidity within the mask are well documented. (3) Frequency and characteristics of dermatologic effects have been insufficiently evaluated. (4) Physical mask designs are varied, making generalizations challenging. (5) More studies of impact on work performance and communication are needed. (6) Studies of effect of FFR design and accompanying training materials on ease and consistency of use are needed.

Elastomeric half-mask respirator disinfection practices among healthcare personnel.

BACKGROUND: Disposable N95 respirator shortages during the COVID-19 and 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemics highlighted the need for reusable alternatives, such as elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMRs). Two US medical organizations deployed reusable EHMRs during the COVID-19 response. In addition to wipe-based disinfection following patient care episodes expected per local policies at both organizations, postshift centralized cleaning and disinfection (C&D) was expected at one site (A), permitting shared-pool EHMR use, and optional at the other (Site B), where EHMRs were issued to individuals. Using a survey, we evaluated disinfection practices reported by EHMR users and predictors of disinfection behaviors and perceptions. METHODS: Surveys assessed EHMR disinfection practices, occupational characteristics, EHMR use frequency, training, and individual-issue versus shared-pool EHMR use. RESULTS: Of 1080 EHMR users completing the survey, 76% reported that they disinfect the EHMR after each patient encounter, which was the expected practice at both sites. Increasing EHMR use, recall of disinfection training, and work in intensive care or emergency settings significantly influenced higher reporting of this practice. 36% of respondents reported using centralized C&D, although reporting was higher at the site (A) where this was expected (53%). Confidence in cleanliness of the EHMR following centralized C&D was not influenced by individual versus shared-pool EHMR issue. CONCLUSIONS: Most EHMR users reported adherence with expected post-care individual-based disinfection of EHMRs but did not necessarily use standardized, centralized C&D. Future efforts to limit reliance on behavior related to respirator disinfection may improve EHMR implementation in healthcare to avert dependence on single-use, disposable N95 respirators.

Medical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for Preventing COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if medical masks offer similar protection against COVID-19 compared with N95 respirators. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04296643). SETTING: 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from 4 May 2020 to 29 March 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Use of medical masks versus fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group. LIMITATION: Potential acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 through household and community exposure, heterogeneity between countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and between-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination. CONCLUSION: Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators. The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.